W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-core@w3.org > July to September 2011

Fwd: Re: HTML5 comments from 4.3.1

From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 08:12:42 +0100
Message-ID: <4E2D176A.9050206@w3.org>
To: "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
[resent to get it into tracker]

Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 13:48:49 +0900
From: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
To: Phillips, Addison <addison@lab126.com>
CC: public-i18n-core@w3.org <public-i18n-core@w3.org>

On 2011/07/19 1:13, Phillips, Addison wrote:

> 3. Section 4.4.4. The article element's description contains this note:
>
> --
> Note: The time element's pubdate attribute can be used to provide the publication date for an article element.
> --
>
> This note, while interesting, seems out of place? Also, the example given uses an incremental, as opposed to floating, time value. Pubdates are typically intended as floating:
>
>    <h1>The Very First Rule of Life</h1>
>    <p><time pubdate datetime="2009-10-09T14:28-08:00"></time></p>

I can't find the word 'floating', or the expression 'floating time
value', in "Working with Time Zones".

I don't know why you call the time the example is using "incremental".
According to http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-timezone-20051013/#d2e163,
incremental time is counted in seconds (or whatever) from a
(system-dependent) epoch, and therefore (as far as I understand) not
interchangeable between systems.

I think what you want to say is that the example doesn't use a time zone
offset, but should use one, so that it's clear at exactly which
"absolute" point in time the publication was made (and thus it's clear
e.g. who was first if two people published the same thing (assuming we
can trust the stamps)).

Regards,   Martin.
Received on Monday, 25 July 2011 07:13:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 25 July 2011 07:13:16 GMT